On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:19:11 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:

Lots of those upside down loans, at least out here, were speculators.
Counting on a 20% / year growth. A few out here are stuck with 5+ houses.

Proves the point doesn't it.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:17 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:54 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Then you can put the insurance companies back into the game by putting
rules in place that brings the mortagage lending practices back to what
worked before - verification of income and ability to pay based on
monthly/yearly income and expenses.
Regulation? Damn, how un-Republican of you. ;-)
Not so much regulation as policy. There will always be situations
that don't fit the local market conditions, or non-classic buyers who
have considerations other than those I mentioned, which local bankers
and underwriters can evaluate properly.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but this subprime fiasco seems
more like Tulip Mania than a classic bubble. I mean, what were they
thinking, or not?
With respect to tulips, the analogy isn't exactly "perfect" in the
sense that there are some arguments about the true cause of the Tulip
Mania Bubble by some fairly competent historians.

However, as popularly explained, the housing bubble is exactly like
the Tulip Mania Bubble which is the classic case. Prices will go up
forever - ergo, you can't lose money because you will always make
money.

While true over time, it's generally not true over the short term (say
5 years as opposed to 13 years). For instance properties I've owned
until recently that appreciated in terms of real market value (as
opposed to fair market value) 90% since a point in 2001 - one house
that I still have was bought at $132K and was bank appraised last week
at $234,000 (fair value $219k) and I have an offer of $230k.

That's what most people were counting on with the low ARMs - get in
low and sell high.

Only it didn't work that way. :)

Did you here about the French trader that lost $7 billion? Somebody at
Societe Generale was asleep.
And entirely believable oddly enough. Certainly the trader's
supervisors were asleep at the switch, but one single trader can, and
has done before, bought into futures trades on their own and ruined
financial institutions.

What I find interesting is how Soc Gen unwound the trades - that was
total incompetance.


Lots of those upside down loans, at least out here, were speculators.
Counting on a 20% / year growth. A few out here are stuck with 5+ houses.




Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

On Jan 30, 3:16*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:03 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:54:49 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
This reminds me. I wonder what the local dentist (NOYB) is putting up
with nowdays?
If he really has a house in Port Royal he might not have been hurt
that bad. The multi-million dollar market is still holding. It is the
$250k-$1m market that took most of the bath around here. Over in West
Palm where my daughter lives they are still moving the "need" houses
at about the same price. "Want" houses are taking the beating.
My mama lived over that way, and left me a condo. My uncle retired to
Boca. Now, one of his "kids" (a few years older than I am) lives in that
house and manages the condo for me. I've stayed with my "cuz," but for
some reason I've not been to the condo since my mother died. We've had
two renters in it since she died. My favorite area in that part of
Florida is Bal Harbour, a bit further south.

That's funny, you've never mentioned that to NOYB and all of the other
people here who live in that area........
Are you lobster boating us?

You dumb foch, my mother's condo is in the Palm Beach area, "Over in
West Palm," as gfretwell was discussion. And my cuz lives in Boca, which
is why she manages the property. Look at a map, figure it out.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

There are many people in that area, you should have mentioned it. I
really think you're lobster boating us! I don't need a map, Harry, I
lived in Florida a long time, and worked for a company that had me
travelling all over the state. Your childish name calling clearly
shows you are caught in but another lie.

wrote:

I
lived in Florida a long time, and worked for a company that had me
travelling all over the state.


Who the hell would hire a slow-wit like you?

What did you do, count the expansion cracks in sidewalks?

On Jan 30, 4:36*pm, HK wrote:
wrote:

* I

lived in Florida a long time, and worked for a company that had me
travelling all over the state.

Who the hell would hire a slow-wit like you?

What did you do, count the expansion cracks in sidewalks?

That's great! Another idiotic, uncalled for ignorant response showing
that once again, you're caught in a lobster boat lie.....

wrote:
On Jan 30, 4:36 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:

I

lived in Florida a long time, and worked for a company that had me
travelling all over the state.
Who the hell would hire a slow-wit like you?

What did you do, count the expansion cracks in sidewalks?

That's great! Another idiotic, uncalled for ignorant response showing
that once again, you're caught in a lobster boat lie.....


Well, there's never been the slightest indicator here that you have
talent in any area that might earn an income. Give us a clue.

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:16:42 -0500, HK wrote:

wrote:
On Jan 30, 2:03 pm, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:54:49 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote:
This reminds me. I wonder what the local dentist (NOYB) is putting up
with nowdays?
If he really has a house in Port Royal he might not have been hurt
that bad. The multi-million dollar market is still holding. It is the
$250k-$1m market that took most of the bath around here. Over in West
Palm where my daughter lives they are still moving the "need" houses
at about the same price. "Want" houses are taking the beating.
My mama lived over that way, and left me a condo. My uncle retired to
Boca. Now, one of his "kids" (a few years older than I am) lives in that
house and manages the condo for me. I've stayed with my "cuz," but for
some reason I've not been to the condo since my mother died. We've had
two renters in it since she died. My favorite area in that part of
Florida is Bal Harbour, a bit further south.

That's funny, you've never mentioned that to NOYB and all of the other
people here who live in that area........
Are you lobster boating us?



You dumb foch, my mother's condo is in the Palm Beach area, "Over in
West Palm," as gfretwell was discussion. And my cuz lives in Boca, which
is why she manages the property. Look at a map, figure it out.

Harry, it's OK. Someone here will believe you.
--
John H

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 12:03:58 -0500, "John" wrote:


"D.Duck" wrote in message
m...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:30:17 -0500, JimH wrote:


He promptly blamed the lender as he said he did not know what an ARM
was. Doh!

Summary of sub-prime write-downs in Q4
UBS $13.7 bln
Citigroup $13.7 bln
Morgan Stanley $10.3 bln
Merrill Lynch $8.4 bln
HSBC $3.4 bln
Bank of America $3.3 bln
Deutsche Bank $3.1 bln
Barclays $2.7 bln
Royal Bank of Scotland $2.6 bln
Credit Agricole $2.3 bln
Bear Stearns $1.9 bln
Credit Suisse $1.9 bln
JP Morgan Chase $1.6 bln
Goldman Sachs $1.5 bln
Wachovia Bank $1.1 bln
Lehman Brothers $0.8 bln
SunTrust Bank $0.6 bln
Total: $72,900,000,000 and counting!

I guess the lender didn't know what an ARM was either.

Yep, the lenders screwed up big time. How in hell they thought the loan
recipients were going to be able make the payments when the ARM kicked in
is beyond me.

60 Minutes had a piece on the debacle last Sunday. Simply put is was
greed. All along the food chain people/institutions were getting there
commission. It some respects it was kind of like a Ponzi scheme.

The 60 Minutes story reported that it was extremely easy to get a loan and
figures on applications were not even verified.


Add on top of that, because of the cheap easy money, more people were in the
market driving the housing boom, which was the only thing that kept Bush's
economy growing. My vacation home went up in value about 400%. Of course
houses are now sitting - but my taxes will never go back down.

I know a lot of people who refinanced their homes and kept taking equity
out, I know dumb - but if you get cash in hand and your mortgage payment
goes down...... I just hope that they are not caught with an adjustable
loan.


I *knew* it was Bush's fault!

At least now someone admits the economy *was* growing. That's the first
I've heard that.
--
John H

"HK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:17 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:54 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Then you can put the insurance companies back into the game by putting
rules in place that brings the mortagage lending practices back to
what
worked before - verification of income and ability to pay based on
monthly/yearly income and expenses.
Regulation? Damn, how un-Republican of you. ;-)
Not so much regulation as policy. There will always be situations
that don't fit the local market conditions, or non-classic buyers who
have considerations other than those I mentioned, which local bankers
and underwriters can evaluate properly.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but this subprime fiasco seems
more like Tulip Mania than a classic bubble. I mean, what were they
thinking, or not?
With respect to tulips, the analogy isn't exactly "perfect" in the
sense that there are some arguments about the true cause of the Tulip
Mania Bubble by some fairly competent historians.

However, as popularly explained, the housing bubble is exactly like
the Tulip Mania Bubble which is the classic case. Prices will go up
forever - ergo, you can't lose money because you will always make
money.

While true over time, it's generally not true over the short term (say
5 years as opposed to 13 years). For instance properties I've owned
until recently that appreciated in terms of real market value (as
opposed to fair market value) 90% since a point in 2001 - one house
that I still have was bought at $132K and was bank appraised last week
at $234,000 (fair value $219k) and I have an offer of $230k.

That's what most people were counting on with the low ARMs - get in
low and sell high.

Only it didn't work that way. :)

Did you here about the French trader that lost $7 billion? Somebody at
Societe Generale was asleep.
And entirely believable oddly enough. Certainly the trader's
supervisors were asleep at the switch, but one single trader can, and
has done before, bought into futures trades on their own and ruined
financial institutions.

What I find interesting is how Soc Gen unwound the trades - that was
total incompetance.


Lots of those upside down loans, at least out here, were speculators.
Counting on a 20% / year growth. A few out here are stuck with 5+
houses.


Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

Just an example of the fallacy of the boom. Sort of like the dot.bomb boom.
And they will be saved by the loan programs that are being proposed by both
parties.

Calif Bill wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 17:07:17 -0000, wrote:

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:01:54 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


Then you can put the insurance companies back into the game by putting
rules in place that brings the mortagage lending practices back to
what
worked before - verification of income and ability to pay based on
monthly/yearly income and expenses.
Regulation? Damn, how un-Republican of you. ;-)
Not so much regulation as policy. There will always be situations
that don't fit the local market conditions, or non-classic buyers who
have considerations other than those I mentioned, which local bankers
and underwriters can evaluate properly.

What you say makes a lot of sense, but this subprime fiasco seems
more like Tulip Mania than a classic bubble. I mean, what were they
thinking, or not?
With respect to tulips, the analogy isn't exactly "perfect" in the
sense that there are some arguments about the true cause of the Tulip
Mania Bubble by some fairly competent historians.

However, as popularly explained, the housing bubble is exactly like
the Tulip Mania Bubble which is the classic case. Prices will go up
forever - ergo, you can't lose money because you will always make
money.

While true over time, it's generally not true over the short term (say
5 years as opposed to 13 years). For instance properties I've owned
until recently that appreciated in terms of real market value (as
opposed to fair market value) 90% since a point in 2001 - one house
that I still have was bought at $132K and was bank appraised last week
at $234,000 (fair value $219k) and I have an offer of $230k.

That's what most people were counting on with the low ARMs - get in
low and sell high.

Only it didn't work that way. :)

Did you here about the French trader that lost $7 billion? Somebody at
Societe Generale was asleep.
And entirely believable oddly enough. Certainly the trader's
supervisors were asleep at the switch, but one single trader can, and
has done before, bought into futures trades on their own and ruined
financial institutions.

What I find interesting is how Soc Gen unwound the trades - that was
total incompetance.

Lots of those upside down loans, at least out here, were speculators.
Counting on a 20% / year growth. A few out here are stuck with 5+
houses.

Good. They ought to be stuck, but good.

Just an example of the fallacy of the boom. Sort of like the dot.bomb boom.
And they will be saved by the loan programs that are being proposed by both
parties.




If there is any "saving" to be done, it ought to be for individual
families losing the house in which they live.